Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes. As I said in my earlier statement, my understanding is that the NTSB is continuing to study the van stability issue for these 15-passenger vans and to see whether or not they are more likely to roll over and cause injury or death. And since they are too important just to be put aside, I certainly congratulate the gentleman in his persistence in his legislation, and I believe we will accommodate, at least partially, his concerns in a subsequent amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for his leadership on this issue. The tragedies are not unique to Colorado. We have had similar tragedies in the Pacific Northwest, and I think it raises very, very severe questions about whether these vans should be on the road at all. And I certainly would encourage the continued study and action on the safety of these vehicles.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. Just following up on the remarks of the esteemed chairman, I am really pleased that he has strongly supported and we have included in the bill a mandate that on an annual basis we have a report of essentially the 10 ``most wanted,'' is the way I would phrase it. Too many times we have seen in the past where the National Transportation Safety Board raises serious concerns in the aftermath of an aviation incident or accident; and oftentimes, because of various pressures or bureaucratic inertia, we find that those recommendations never again see the light of day. Minimally, we would want to see a substantive response on each and every important recommendation that would track it and give us a meaningful document that shows why it was implemented, why it was not implemented, or where we are in the implementation process or what modifications the FAA has made to it in moving forward with the implementation. So I think that is an excellent addition to the authority of the NTSB and will enhance their status as the world's number one transportation safety watchdog. And that, indeed, is what the NTSB is. They are sought after in accidents overseas, have conducted some very, very difficult investigations and technically assisted in very, very difficult investigations and recovery efforts. So I am also pleased to see that there is a modest increase in the funding for the NTSB recommended here and for the NTSB Academy, which provides the world- class standard of training for accident investigators. And then finally, there is a provision regarding families of passengers. The NTSB does not have really the extensive resources on an ongoing basis to provide assistance to the families and the bereaved of passengers in accidents; and this bill would move that on to other, more appropriate Federal agencies at the appropriate point in the investigation, something which today, unfortunately, often languishes so that neither the NTSB and their principal functions are served, nor are the bereaved family members of the passengers. So also I think this bill is an improvement and a long-needed reauthorization of the NTSB. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order in place of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, today the Bush administration unveiled its transportation funding plan for the next 6-year surface transportation bill. It is pathetically inadequate. If you look at the inventory of needs across the United States of America, the crumbling bridges, the crumbling highways, the congestion, the need for investment, the President and his staff believe that this budget should be flat-lined. We can't afford the investment, they tell us. We can't afford to invest more in roads, bridges and highways, in high-speed rail and congestion mitigation. We just can't afford it. Oh, we can afford massive tax cuts for the wealthy, but if we are going to have massive tax cuts for the wealthy, his number one job creation proposal, we can't afford to create real jobs, jobs in the construction industry. By his own measure, by the measure of the Bush administration Department of Transportation, every $1 billion spent on transportation infrastructure and construction produces 47,000 jobs in the United States of America. If the President would just increase his proposal to come close to that being made by the Republican Chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, they would create 705,000 new jobs a year in the United States of America; real jobs, construction jobs and related jobs in small businesses, and suppliers for those construction companies. Instead, they want to engage in the charade of producing jobs through trickle-down economics and tax cuts. It did not work in the 1980's for Ronald Reagan. It did not work for George Bush the First, and it is not going to work for this George Bush. In fact, his first tax cuts, which were record tax cuts, have not produced any jobs. We have lost nearly a million jobs since his first tax cuts. They have lots of excuses why we have lost those jobs since his record tax cuts went into effect. Mostly Bill Clinton, a few other things, world events; but they have got people to blame, and they are saying since those tax cuts did not work, let us borrow money from the Social Security trust Fund, from the Medicare trust fund; let us borrow money to fund more tax cuts because that is what we have to do now. When we did that first set of tax cuts, we supposedly had a surplus. We no longer have a surplus. We have a huge and growing deficit. We are accumulating debt by more than $1 billion a day; $1 billion a day we are adding to the future debt of the young people of this country. And they want to borrow more money to finance tax cuts for woefully few people, an average of $105,000 for every millionaire. But somehow they think that $105,000 granted to every millionaire in this country in tax cuts will put more people to work than $1 billion invested in crumbling bridges, roads, and highways. It is pretty simple. We could put people back to work. We could make this a more productive country. We could make our transportation system work better. But, no. Tax cuts for precious few political campaign contributors are more important to this administration.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, as the recession began and the government was projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus, the President muscled through a big $1.2 trillion tax cut based on those rosy projections that we would have surpluses as far as the eye could see. He said we could have it all. We could fully fund the Social Security Trust Fund and the lockbox and the Medicare Trust Fund and the lockbox, we could increase spending for education, the military, and we could cut taxes. A number of us at the time said, well, we really should not spend the money before we have it in the bank, and we said, let us do it year by year. We lost and we went forward. Now, they also said at the time, and this is a quote from the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, that their $1.2 trillion tax proposal was the solution for the then beginnings of the malaise of the United States economy. The quote, ``By moving quickly our hope is to have both monetary and fiscal policy pull this economy out of its nose dive.'' Since the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) made that statement on the day the bill was passed, March 8, 2001, the United States of America has lost a million jobs and the economy is still in decline. Now the entire surplus has vanished. We are now confronted with deficits as far as the eye can see. And what do they propose? They propose now to borrow money to give tax cuts. That is right. We are going to borrow money to give tax cuts. Never before in the history of our Nation will we have borrowed so much, a trillion dollars, to give to so few. A few thousand individuals will benefit principally from this massive tax giveaway. Every penny of the Social Security surplus only paid by wage-earning Americans will be borrowed and in great part transferred to those who earn over a million dollars a year, $105,000 each average tax cut for people who earn over a million dollars a year. It is an awful lot of Social Security taxes. That is an awful lot of hours worked by Americans and their families to finance those tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy. The top 5 percent, $200,000 and up, will get 64 percent of the benefits. And as I said, families $1 million and up will average $105,600. And it principally goes to people who do not work for wages. Somehow this administration honors those who either inherited or otherwise, perhaps they were part of the Enron scam or something else have accumulated a bunch of money, or otherwise honorably earned a bunch of money, but they can invest for a living. They do not work for wages. They do not have to go in 40 hours a week, 60 hours a week. They do not have to hold two jobs. They do not have to work for wages. They should pay a tax rate lower, according to this administration, than working American families. Now, in the short term they say this trickle down from these wealthy people will put those working wage-earning folks back to work, and understand their theory since wage earners will pay higher taxers than investors, that will ultimately undo the deficits. We will get the money from the wage earners because the investors will not be paying the taxes anymore. But even to get there, they had to put in a Brooklyn Bridge provision which is that many of the provisions of this legislation will expire in a few years. Otherwise, the cost tag would go over a trillion dollars; and since we are borrowing all this money to give back, that would be a problem with a lot of folks. So the Brooklyn Bridge provision says that most of these tax cuts, except the ones that go to the wealthy, will expire in 2005. So the child care credit increase up to a thousand dollars, well, that drops back down to $700 in 2005. The increasing of the 10 percent bracket for the lowest income earners, those around $12,000-$14,000 a year, well, that expires in 2005. Married couples, helping to do away with the marriage penalty, that expires in 2005. The AMT, a lot of people do not know what that is, but a lot of middle-income families and upper-middle-income families will be falling into this trap, it needs to be fixed, that expires in 2005. But guess what? The capital gains and dividend provisions, those that give the $105,000 a year to the families that earn over a million dollars, that never expires under the proposal the House will vote on tomorrow. And the top bracket rate reductions, those will not ever expire either. Wage-earning suckers will pay the bill while people who can afford to invest for a living will reap the benefits. But this is trickle-down economics revisited; and as we know, it worked really well in the 1980s. In fact, Dick Cheney was one of the principal architects back then to the deficit-producing, job-killing, trickle-down economics of the 1980s; and now we will revisit it in the 21st century. Shame on this House of Representatives for bringing up this bill in this manner with this constrained debate with no alternative that would produce jobs and wealth in this country allowed to be offered.

Mr. DEFAZIO

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the University of Oregon has a well- established nanotechnology program that along with its partners at Oregon State University occupies a special niche in the field of nanoscience research. The University of Oregon is working closely with Oregon State University to put nanotechnology to work in real micro systems with applications in sensors for human safety, reactors for reduced environmental impact, more efficient energy sources, life saving medical devices, and integrated circuits for the next generation of computers and communications systems. The legislation speaks to the need to apply nanoscale research to microscale devices and will strengthen national research policy in support of such work. Beyond that, the University of Oregon is pioneering research into inherently safer materials and manufacturing or ``green nanoscience''. Through deliberate design at the moelcular or nanoscale level, University of Oregon researchers aim to produce products and processes that pose dramatically less risk to human health than traditional manufacturing methods. The potential impact of nanotechnology derives from the fact that unprecedented material properties are being discovered in nanoscale materials. These properties can be harnessed to invent entirely new products and processes. UO researchers have already discovered new phenomena in nanoscience such as thermoelectric materials that present energy efficient, refrigerant-free cooling solutions and biomolecular lithography, a possible candidate for the ultimate minuritzation of electronic circuits and computers. If nanotechnology is the both a path to the next industrial revolution and a source of concern about societal and ethical issues involving nanoscale research, then federal agencies should be proactive in funding research that seeks ways to develop materials and manufacturing methods that are inherently safer--less wasteful in their use of materials and energy, less harmful to human health and safety, and just as economical to produce.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am voting yes on H. Con. Res. 141, a hortative resolution with no legally-binding impact, but which has a lot of predictable political rhetoric about the need to reform the enormously complex and loophole-ridden federal tax code. I am voting yes because the ``whereas'' clauses in the resolution are by and large inoffensive, if deliberately vague about the true intention behind the rhetoric, which is to fundamentally reform the U.S. tax code in a way that eases the tax burden on the rich and corporations and raises the burden on middle and lower-income Americans. I agree that the federal tax code is too complex. Billions are spent trying to comply with its provisions. Though, I would also point out that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations also spend billions in an effort to avoid their fair share of the federal tax burden. The resolution is also correct to say the tax code is full of loopholes and special interest exemptions. Though, I would point out that these loopholes and exemptions, which largely benefit the most powerful in our society, did not get into the tax code by accident or osmosis. They were put there by Members of Congress at the behest of wealthy campaign contributors. Although I am voting yes, I want to go on the record in opposition to the second ``resolved'' clause of the resolution, which in my opinion is too deferential to the tax reform concepts laid out in the February 2003 Economic Report of the President. The President's report lays out its utopian vision of reduced, or ideally zero, taxes on corporations, reduced taxes on capital, and increased taxes on consumption and wages, which would hurt middle and lower-income Americans. Mr. Speaker, if the U.S. tax code is going to be overhauled, I believe it should be made more progressive than it is today. That would mean eliminating special interest loopholes for corporations and wealthy Americans. Cracking down on tax dodging by powerful individuals and businesses. Doing so would allow us to relieve some of the tax burden on middle and lower-income Americans. Further, any overhaul of the federal tax code must not add to the crushing burden of debt we are leaving to the next generation. Like Adam Smith, author of the pro-capitalism tome ``The Wealth of Nations,'' I believe in progressive taxation. Adam Smith wrote, ``The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ... [As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] `remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.' ''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today, finally, 18 months after it was promised, the United States House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, almost 2 to 1 when finally forced, to provide some financial assistance to the 150,000 airline workers who have lost their jobs as a result of 9/11 and the horrendous recession in the United States. It is expected that as many as another 70,000 will lose their jobs because of the slowdown in travel due to the war in Iraq and even more probably with the threat of SARS and other problems. It is time that we recognize the service of these people to our country and the fact that they need a little bit of help in their time of need. The Congress rushed through a $15 billion airline bailout shortly after 9/11 to try to help keep the industry in the air when people were afraid to fly. And that bailout provided more funds in one day than the entire deregulated industry has made in its entire history. Its entire 26-year history was eclipsed, their profits, by that one bill. But the bill glaringly omitted any assistance directly to workers and it meaninglessly pretended to limit the salaries of CEOs. I have seen the results of the meaningless limits adopted by that legislation 2 years ago, or 18 months ago, in bailing out the airlines with the huge compensation packages and salaries and specially protected retirement that is being made available to the executives. It is defended. They said how could we get execs to work here if we did not pay them these outrageous salaries and if we did not totally protect their retirement? Guess what? All of the line workers, all the flight attendants, all the pilots, all the mechanics, all the gate agents, all the ticket agents, none of those people have specially protected pensions, and yet there has not been support from the industry or from this administration or from the majority in this House of Representatives to help those distressed workers. And finally today, in one of those opportunities that rarely comes, a week ago when we were taking up the supplemental bill I tried to offer an amendment to help the workers; in fact, a Republican Member had gone earlier to a press conference with me and others to announce the legislation, and I asked him if he would go to the Committee on Rules and ask to have it made in order during the bill, and he said absolutely. Guess what? He did not show up. He did not show up because he was intimidated by the Republican leadership. I came to the floor and offered that amendment, but the Republicans struck it down on a procedural technicality. They said we cannot take up a bill here to help the workers. We will get to it soon. Just like the 18 months we had promised previously, soon. Soon when? Today, because we had one opportunity, which was a motion to instruct, usually a technical sort of thing in the House of Representative, we focused in on assistance to workers that has been long overdue; and when forced to vote, we find that nearly two-thirds of the United States House of Representatives supports that, but their leadership and the White House leadership has been preventing us from taking that step. Congratulations to the House for that vote today and shame on the leadership and shame on the leadership downtown that did not allow that vote, and shame on them if they find some way to try to kill this in the conference committee because the White House is objecting that there is too much money in the bill to help the airlines now that we have added a little bit of money to directly help the workers. We will all be watching to see what comes in that final conference report, and we will know who killed the assistance to workers if it is stripped out of the bill. After this overwhelming vote here and the overwhelming vote in the Senate, let the majority work its will and let us help these workers and their families.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, 18 months ago, the Republican leadership during the debate on the first $15 billion bailout for the airline industry promised that soon, promptly, we would consider employee relief, including financial assistance, health insurance and training for new careers. It is 18 months later, and those 150,000 airline employees are still waiting, 18 months of waiting. The airlines project they will lay off another 70,000 because of the war with Iraq. Boeing has cut 30,000 workers. They are all still waiting for that financial assistance and extended unemployment package. Finally, today, here on the United States House of Representatives floor for the first time, 18 months too late, we are going to take a vote on that issue; and we will see where people really stand, whether they are with the workers or they just want to bail out the corporations.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will take part of the time to respond to the chairman, since he did not give me time. Mr. Chairman, I resent the broad-scale implications about the ``proven linkage'' between Saddam Hussein. They have been able to put Saddam Hussein in the same sentence with al Qaeda; but the CIA, DIA and others have not been able to find or prove a single link, except for the group that he did not control up in the northern part of the country behind the Kurds, who have now been eradicated. But there are proven links to the Saudis, there are proven links to the Pakistani intelligence service, there are proven links to others who in fact will receive assistance under this bill. That aside, and we will not get back into that debate again here tonight, but I believe the gentleman mischaracterizes my amendment. This was raised in light of Secretary Rumsfeld threatening to take action against Syria. We have heard that ``real men go to Tehran'' and other things from this administration. I am concerned what adventures they might have in mind in terms of further preemptive wars. I was trying to make the statement that before we fight any more preemptive wars, that we would live up to our authority under article 1, section 8, which we failed, and we failed the troops and the American people in the Congress in the matter of this current action, although it was authorized under other auspices by this Congress. My other amendment is really simple. I know it will be opposed, but here it is. This Congress authorized that we would make the American people safe by setting up National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support teams in every State of the United States and the territories. Guess what, we have not delivered on that. We do not have enough money. We have been told there are budget constraints. We cannot afford a National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support team in 17 States, including my own and that of the ranking member of the committee and a number of other States. We cannot afford it; yet we can send $1 billion unsolicited to Turkey. As I said earlier on the floor tonight, the ambassador of Turkey said these funds were not solicited; they were a unilateral action on the part of the United States of America; essentially a gift or bribe, however we want to characterize it. Would the American people not be better served by just reducing that by 20 percent? So 20 percent of the $1 billion that we are going to borrow and send to Turkey would be spent here in the United States of America for the National Guard to prevent destruction by weapons of mass destruction. Now, I know we are going to hear, this would be an insult to the Turks and others. But is it not an insult to the American people that we are not making them as safe as we could? If Members want to talk about patriotism, damn it, protect our people here at home. If Members want to cast aspersions on me, I want this money to be spent in the United States of America. They want to send it to Turkey, plain and simple. We are going to vote up or down on this. It is real simple. They will get up and say, oh, the Turks, the Turks. We either fund under the law what we said we would or what we were mandated to do, which we say we do not have the money to do, or we do not. This is the simple way to do it. The Turks would still get $800 million that they did not ask for. Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear what we are saying here. Military actions except as authorized, none of the funds may be used to initiate a launch. This is beyond those already authorized. I had other language which went to that; the Parliamentarian stripped it out. But this is clearly saying we have already authorized the current actions, we authorized them under the 9/11 resolution, Afghanistan and other actions. Those are authorized. This would be future actions outside the scope of the Iraq war, outside the scope of the Afghanistan war and/or the war on terrorism, whatever those might be, and Secretary Rumsfeld has an active mind.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I had prior proposed legislation which would have required this House to fulfill its constitutional duties for this particular action, and some 30-some odd people saw fit to put their names on that. This amendment simply refers to the funds in this bill and future actions that are not authorized. So this is actually even more limited in its scope, but it does go directly to the obligations and duties of this House under Article I, section 8.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that this amendment would be accepted as noncontroversial. It would, at the end of a bill, insert a new section which basically simply recognizes the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of Article I, section 8. This has been reviewed by and edited by the Parliamentarian's Office and I understand that in its current form, it is in order. I had a previous version which was not in order. It is very simple, and I will read it. Often we debate things that are too long to read, but this says, ``None of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate or launch military actions except as authorized by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.'' Now, what does that mean? That means that we already have an outstanding authorization for these activities, which I opposed, which was not a declaration of war, but Congress did pass an authorization under the War Powers Act for current activities in the Middle East and any activities that might be pertinent to that. We have another outstanding authorization for anyone who has engaged in, aided, or abetted, or harbored those involved in 9/11. I think that pretty well covers any potential terrorist threat or harboring of terrorists or fugitives responsible for those sorts of actions around the world between those two resolutions. So this simply says before the administration might use any of the $75 billion in this bill, which we are borrowing and delegating to them for a number of purposes, to engage in a military action outside of those two authorizations dealing with another part of the world or another country, that it would have to be compliant with the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe this is extraordinarily noncontroversial, and I would give the chairman an opportunity to accept it and save 2 minutes; I probably have 2 minutes left. But he is not jumping to his feet, so I will keep talking for another 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe that this House, the people's House, would not feel that in borrowing and transmitting huge amounts of funds to the administration, would not want to protect its constitutional prerogatives and make certain that those funds were not used beyond the purposes of the already existing authorizations. So I would be puzzled if this House would reject this amendment, and I would wonder what they know that I do not know, or what plans to use this money in ways that are not already authorized by law might be out there; and that would cause me grave concern, particularly when I sometimes listen to the Secretary of Defense, who was then contradicted by the Secretary of State.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I did last evening go to the Committee on Rules. There was a Republican member who was a principal sponsor of this legislation who was supposed to come to the Committee on Rules and ask for a waiver. He did not, but in his stead I asked the committee to protect this or, even better, to open up this section of the bill which goes to aviation and allow it to be amended outside of the rules of the appropriations process since this section of the bill was written totally, basically, behind closed doors. Unfortunately, apparently the Committee on Rules saw fit not to do that.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I could speak to the point of order.